Superpowers and Ethics

[Christopher]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Snapping your fingers and getting strangers to instantly go down on you?

That what I see too. In order to archieve such a thing, you have to manipulate their mind directly (persuasion is only indirect and only influences). The mechanics seem to support this:

Against MC you get breakout roll, against persuasion not.

A GM can rule that Persasion can't do some things even with super roll and long time, what MC can get with an action and medium roll for certain.

 

About Diplomatik Imiunity:

Perks can be negated through game results.

 

Acutally I even though of a "License to Mindbend/Mindread", similar to the "License to Kill" of Mister Bond, for a Mentalist (who is reluctant to use it).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Indeed. With this "Persuasion" MC you can go to someone and say "Bla Bla Bla' date=' Kill Your Wife, Bla Bla Bla" and he does it. And in court you could even defend yourself: "I thought it as a joke. How could I [i']posibilliy[/i] know he would do it? I mean nobody can be that persuasive, can he?"

 

If this is about still ethics, is his power any more or less ethic than mentos?

 

It is no more and no less ethical than Menton's. In both cases, the power is not, in and of itself, ethical or unethical. It is the use to which it is put which is either ethical or unethical. In your example, it has been used in an unethical manner. If, instead, SuperPersuasion is used to persuade the distraught mother who is holding a knife to the child social services has come to take into custody to put the knife down and let the child go, that seems a perfectly ethical use of SuperPersuasion. And it also seems a perfectly ethical use of Mind Control that completely overrides the target's mental impulses, replacing them with those desired by the Mind Controller.

 

The question is where the line is drawn in less clear situations. If I use Brain Overriding Mind Control to cause the Board of Directors to declare a substantial bonus to me, that seems clearly unethical. So would bribing them, kidnapping their families or threatening to go public with the pictures from last year's "corporate retreat" in Jamaica.

 

However, what if I use SuperPersuasion? I submit that it is no more unethical to persuade the Board to grant me that bonus using SuperPersuasion than using a high Persuasion roll (itself a SuperPersuasion ability). Both of the mechanics model the same effect - a SuperPersuasive person. So, to me, we should be discussing the ethics of persuading the Board to give me that bonus, not the ethics of some underlying mechanic by which I achieve the in-game result of persuading (not bribing, blackmailing or SFX, rather than rules mechanics, mind controlling) the Board to give me that bonus. Regardless of the mechanic used to model the character, his ability is SuperPersuasiveness. The mechanic does not make the SuperPersuasion more, or less, ethical. The mechanic is in no way perceived by those residing within the game universe. They see only that this guy is incredibly persuasive.

 

Hmm. If I created a character with a 50 PRE' date=' plus all of the interaction skills at their base rolls(i.e., 19-), they could likely induce changes in beliefs and behavior not far from what could be accomplished via mind control. Does the fact they could accomplish this without any use of overt superpower(since their skill technically isn't superhuman, just at the very upper bound of what a legendary human might be capable of) in any way diminish the ethical implications of their ability to do so, and use of this ability to accomplish ends they wouldn't otherwise be able to achieve? Goes back to the previously mentioned example of a super-lawyer winning an acquittal for a guilty-as-heck client, or a politician whipping people into a frenzy about something they shouldn't be worried about. Super-persuasion, however modeled, would likely creep into the same ethically murky territory as a "mind control lite" power. It's true that you couldn't get any woman in the world to sleep with you(with a 19- charm roll), but the fact you could get a super-majority to do so tends to point towards a possession of an overly advantageous ability--akin to a power, which should be accompanied by a similar sense of ethical responsibility(well, arguably, anyway--someone could still probably argue the difference between "no woman could say no to me even if she wanted to" and "it's possible for a woman to say no, it's just extremely difficult and therefore unlikely". )[/quote']

 

Exactly - it is the use to which the ability is put that determines whether it is ethical, not the mechanic by which it is constructed.

 

Is it any MORE ethical to try to seduce that hypothical Nun and fail than to succeed? We seem to be focused exclusively on the possibility of failure, but I don't think that Persuasive fellow's quest for a bonus is made any more ethical because he fails to persuade the Board! Nor would that make a bribe, blackmail, hostage taking or actual control of their minds any more ethical.

 

That what I see too. In order to archieve such a thing, you have to manipulate their mind directly (persuasion is only indirect and only influences). The mechanics seem to support this:

Against MC you get breakout roll, against persuasion not.

A GM can rule that Persasion can't do some things even with super roll and long time, what MC can get with an action and medium roll for certain.

 

The GM can rule whatever the GM wishes to rule. If he rules that, in order to be THAT persuasive, you must use the Mind Control mechanic, and not the Persuasion Skill mechanic, he has ruled that Mind Control is used to be SuperPersuasive.

 

About Diplomatik Imiunity:

Perks can be negated through game results.

 

And I can also buy Drain Mind Control with a per century recovery time, so I can negate your Mind Control through game results as well. Any GM who allows the player to purchase either ability with the intent of simply making the points disappear, whatever the in-game rationale, is not fit to sit behind the screen.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Exactly - it is the use to which the ability is put that determines whether it is ethical' date=' not the mechanic by which it is constructed.[/quote']

 

Agreed. This very neatly sums up what I've been trying to say.

[Clonus]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Agreed. This very neatly sums up what I've been trying to say.

 

So then as far as you are concerned it is OK to enslave all those around you with mind control as long as it is possible to actually gain the devotion of all those around you and get them to serve you?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Snapping your fingers and getting strangers to instantly go down on you?

 

Perhaps not, but it's certainly possible, with a 19- Charm roll, to persuade a happily married person, with a few hours of schmoozing and courting, to do so. One could even rush the attempt a bit, and pull it off within an hour. There's a very fine line, imo, between ultra-skillful manipulation and straight up mind control.

[Clonus]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Perhaps not' date=' but it's certainly possible, with a 19- Charm roll, to persuade a happily married person, with a few hours of schmoozing and courting, to do so. One could even rush the attempt a bit, and pull it off within an hour. There's a very fine line, imo, between ultra-skillful manipulation and straight up mind control.[/quote']

 

With mind control you don't need to bother.

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

So then as far as you are concerned it is OK to enslave all those around you with mind control as long as it is possible to actually gain the devotion of all those around you and get them to serve you?

 

Absolutely not. I never suggested anything of the sort. Whether or not you get caught or can get caught has nothing to do with ethics. I was simply agreeing with Hugh's statement that what you do, not how you define the ability in game terms is what defines the ethical nature of the action.

 

For example, if I convince a 5 year old running a lemonade stand that they should give me all their lemonade for free, and they think it's a good idea because of how persuasive I am, it would be unethical. This is regardless of whether or not anyone ever finds out. It's unethical because I took advantage of someone unfairly, irrespective of whether I did so because I have a 19- in Trading, or Persuasion, or a 20d6 Mind Control. The action is unethical, not how the ability is defined in game terms.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

So then as far as you are concerned it is OK to enslave all those around you with mind control as long as it is possible to actually gain the devotion of all those around you and get them to serve you?

 

As phookz says, it is not OK to enslave those around you. It does not become OK because it is possible to make that happen. It is not OK to use Persuasion, Charm or other interaction skills to make that happen. It is not HOW you enslave them that makes this unethical. It is THAT you enslave them.

 

If you get off the ship and the people look at you and go "White Gods from Beyond the Sea!", it is not OK to use their misconception, which you did not undertake any effort to create, to enslave them, any more than it would be OK to kidnap their children and kill one an hour until they obey, or to Persuade them with pretty beads, or to convince them with Oratory, or Charm them with your good looks a suave words, or override their brains with psychic powers.

 

Enslaving them is unethical.

 

The means by which you enslave them is completely irrelevant to the ethical question.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I happen to agree with Hugh and Phookz, here: use of the power, not the game mechanic, defines the ethics.

Shifting to a real life example:

I own a pistol.

If I use it to shoot targets, that's fine.

If I use it to hunt for food, most people wouldn't object.

If I use it to kill animals for fun ("Sport"), many find that unethical.

If I use it to defend my family, most will say I was in the right.

If I use it to force someone to give me thier wallet, they'd say it was a crime. (And unethical)

If I use it to stop a crime, most would be fine with that.

If I use it to murder my wife,

and I think I've driven my point into the ground.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I happen to agree with Hugh and Phookz, here: use of the power, not the game mechanic, defines the ethics.

Shifting to a real life example:

I own a pistol.

If I use it to shoot targets, that's fine.

If I use it to hunt for food, most people wouldn't object.

If I use it to kill animals for fun ("Sport"), many find that unethical.

If I use it to defend my family, most will say I was in the right.

If I use it to force someone to give me thier wallet, they'd say it was a crime. (And unethical)

If I use it to stop a crime, most would be fine with that.

If I use it to murder my wife,

and I think I've driven my point into the ground.

 

Not based on this thread...

 

Another good example. There are probably some who would suggest just owning the gun is unethical, however. I would agree with your contention that its use, not its existence, determines its ethics.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Not based on this thread...

 

Another good example. There are probably some who would suggest just owning the gun is unethical, however. I would agree with your contention that its use, not its existence, determines its ethics.

 

Hmmm...

What if...

I own a pistol, in a unusable condition, for historical display purposes?

Say, a 1850 Navy Cap and Ball revolver, captured outside the city of Mobile Alabama by a ancestor with the 1st Mississippi Rangers in 1863.

And I put it on a plaque, with a little nameplate saying what it is and how the family acquired it?

(Oh, it just so happens I own two pistols, one usable, one for display only. And own no ammunition for the usable one.)

[phookz]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

I happen to agree with Hugh and Phookz, here: use of the power, not the game mechanic, defines the ethics.

Shifting to a real life example:

I own a pistol.

If I use it to shoot targets, that's fine.

If I use it to hunt for food, most people wouldn't object.

If I use it to kill animals for fun ("Sport"), many find that unethical.

If I use it to defend my family, most will say I was in the right.

If I use it to force someone to give me thier wallet, they'd say it was a crime. (And unethical)

If I use it to stop a crime, most would be fine with that.

If I use it to murder my wife,

and I think I've driven my point into the ground.

 

This is a great real-world example. As far as any of us know, this is real life and not a game. If it were a game, then there could be a character sheet somewhere with powers describing how the gun works. That build of the gun does not describe the ethical nature of the gun. Only the specifics of use of the gun can be used to determine the ethics related to said use.

 

If we are in fact in a game world, I've been seriously blowing my Persuasion rolls.

[Clonus]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

This is a great real-world example. .

 

Of what? The initial issue here was of a character with mind control who used his powers to keep himself from having to sit through long and boring meetings by mind controlling the participants. One could hardly use a gun the same way and have it be called "ethical". Or even sane. Not many people have been arguing that merely having mind control is unethical or even that it would be unethical to use it in the same kinds of situations where it would be legal to be using a gun. It is that particular use of mind control and other uses of it for no other reason than to keep other people from annoying, boring or standing in your that are at issue.

[Clonus]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

As phookz says, it is not OK to enslave those around you. It does not become OK because it is possible to make that happen. It is not OK to use Persuasion, Charm or other interaction skills to make that happen. It is not HOW you enslave them that makes this unethical. It is THAT you enslave them.

 

If you get off the ship and the people look at you and go "White Gods from Beyond the Sea!", it is not OK to use their misconception, which you did not undertake any effort to create, to enslave them, any more than it would be OK to kidnap their children and kill one an hour until they obey, or to Persuade them with pretty beads, or to convince them with Oratory, or Charm them with your good looks a suave words, or override their brains with psychic powers.

 

Enslaving them is unethical.

 

The means by which you enslave them is completely irrelevant to the ethical question.

 

OK so not "enslave". Just "Get them to do anything (otherwise legal) that you want them to do."

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Of what? The initial issue here was of a character with mind control who used his powers to keep himself from having to sit through long and boring meetings by mind controlling the participants. One could hardly use a gun the same way and have it be called "ethical". Or even sane. Not many people have been arguing that merely having mind control is unethical or even that it would be unethical to use it in the same kinds of situations where it would be legal to be using a gun. It is that particular use of mind control and other uses of it for no other reason than to keep other people from annoying' date=' boring or standing in your that are at issue.[/quote']

 

Hmmm...

Incomplete thought follows.

Using mind control as I originally described (influencing a meeting to get it to end sooner, and making group decisions the controller prefers) is definetely unethical. It is unethical because of what is done (subvert the decision process), not how. If (stretching the situation) I* instead used a EB, invisible power effect, indirect, stun only, plus anonoumous notes to get what I wanted ('or else') it would be equally unethical for the same reason.

Of course, I could use the same power to force a criminal to drop his weapon and surrender, which I don't think anyone would object to.

 

The 'what you use it for' is ethical/unethical, not the power itself.

 

*I have neither the described EB, nor mental powers. Darn it. And I probably could not be trusted with either.

[Clonus]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

Hmmm...

Incomplete thought follows.

Using mind control as I originally described (influencing a meeting to get it to end sooner, and making group decisions the controller prefers) is definetely unethical. It is unethical because of what is done (subvert the decision process), not how.

 

And would you say using social interaction skills to move the meeting along is also unethical?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

This is a great real-world example. As far as any of us know, this is real life and not a game. If it were a game, then there could be a character sheet somewhere with powers describing how the gun works. That build of the gun does not describe the ethical nature of the gun. Only the specifics of use of the gun can be used to determine the ethics related to said use.

 

If we are in fact in a game world, I've been seriously blowing my Persuasion rolls.

 

If we are in a game world, I want to rebuild my character sheet, please. There are quite a few points that could stand to be shifted around!

 

OK so not "enslave". Just "Get them to do anything (otherwise legal) that you want them to do."

 

My submission is that it is no more, and no less, ethical to get them to do something I want them to do by SuperPersuasion than by any other interaction method. If it is unethical to get them to take that action by SuperPersuasion, it is equally unethical to get them to take that action by normal Persuasion/Charm/etc. or by offering them cash to do so, whether in the form of stopping them on the street and offering an envelope of bills or asking them to accept employment in that capacity.

 

I would consider the bar to be higher if we want to support that it is ethical to cause them to take a certain action by threat, blackmail, or use of force, and that the use of physical force is on a par with the use of Mind Control by which the user knowingly overrides the thought and/or decisionmaking process of the target. In fact, one might liken the use of Mind Control to the use of physical force ("sign over the deed, Granny, or the kid gets it") or fraud (such as forging Granny's signature) to achieve the desired end.

 

And would you say using social interaction skills to move the meeting along is also unethical?

 

So, from the above, I would say use of social interaction skills to move the meeting along is as ethical, or unethical, as using SuperSocialSkills. In my view, this is not unethical. However, moving the meeting along by physical violence, threat of same or overriding the decisions of the other members of the meeting would be unethical. The bar is set higher for ethical use of these approaches.

 

Is it unethical to use money to move the meeting along? One example would be offering a donation to the organization in exchange for them choosing one decision over another (perhaps I want them to name the building after me; perhaps I want them to cease supporting a cause I am opposed to), while another would be deciding that anyone dragging this meeting on past its appointed closure time will be fired.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

And would you say using social interaction skills to move the meeting along is also unethical?

 

I'd say no. I've attempted to get meetings moving with social interaction skills. I've failed.

Which is where we come into game mechanics arguements, vice ethics. If I use my 30 or less 'persuasion' skill to get the meeting to go faster, or do I use my 30d6 Mind Control, requires a skill roll (Persuasion), cannot get over +20 ego defined as "Super Persuasive"... in game effects, the powers have similar results except persuasion skills don't work on PCs.*

 

*A concept I stole from GDW's Star Wars the RPG.

[Clonus]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

 

 

I would consider the bar to be higher if we want to support that it is ethical to cause them to take a certain action by threat, blackmail, or use of force, and that the use of physical force is on a par with the use of Mind Control by which the user knowingly overrides the thought and/or decisionmaking process of the target. In fact, one might liken the use of Mind Control to the use of physical force ("sign over the deed, Granny, or the kid gets it") or fraud (such as forging Granny's signature) to achieve the desired end.

 

So then as long as the person is thoughtless enough to never consider why it is that everyone except people with mindshields will agree whatever they have to say without needing to offer an actual argument, they are not being unethical?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Superpowers and Ethics

 

So then as long as the person is thoughtless enough to never consider why it is that everyone except people with mindshields will agree whatever they have to say without needing to offer an actual argument' date=' they are not being unethical?[/quote']

 

Well, why would anyone need any argument to agree with my position? Clearly, my position is the right one or I would not be advancing it. Obviously, the rest of the people in the meeting were astute enough to grasp that when I put my proposal on the table. If you say "Let's go eat at Subway", and all your friends agree, do you have to look to whether you have suddenly developed Mind Control powers, or do you go and eat?

 

Now, if I concentrate on the dissenter, his eyes go blank and he mechanically intones "I withdraw my objections in favour of the Mast...Chair", that's a different ability than Persuasion, Super or otherwise.